Comment by toraway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toraway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

  > They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way.

I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.

The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.

The US didn't do the world any favors by getting it out of the way sooner or something, that's just absurd apoligism for a poorly planned war of choice that has obviously been a net negative for basically the entire world.

It would be like if the US nuked China and then shrugged after they predictably retaliated saying it just proved the threat from their stockpile that had always existed.

> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.

Why would they threaten to do so prior to being ready? Have you ever played a strategy game where you build up your forces for an advantageous offensive or defensive position? Countries do this too. If we were playing a game where my actions would provide some advantage or victory over you in some area or a broad area, why would I announce what my intentions were to you so you could react or anticipate my actions?

Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place? Why isn't Singapore stockpiling missiles, or perhaps Portugal, or Panama, or Morocco? Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and more, building up these missile stockpiles, continuing to pursue a nuclear bomb, helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine, we wouldn't be here. At some point you just have to look at their actions and their actions suggest implementing a plan.

> The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.

They don't have control over the Straight of Hormuz. It's a bit of semantics, but control would mean they can allow or disallow ships to pass based on their own decision making. They can disallow ships, but the US can also disallow ships. If Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz because they can fire missiles at ships, the US also controls the Straight of Hormuz because of that very same capability.

It is not a game. And this war happened because Israel and USA assumed Iran is weak.

This had squat zero with acute danger of military buildup. This happened because Hegseth thought Iran will fold and found it super unfair they did not.

> Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place?

To protect themselves when America starta Another war. It cant go without war for long. As brutal as iran is, there was no imminent threat of expansion

It is israel who just displaced millions of people.

Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?

Iran is weak compared to the United States. The war wasn't started because Iran is weak, it was started because Iran is engaging in various activities that have effects in the world that the United States finds unacceptable.

> To protect themselves when America starta Another war.

Yet, only Iran has to protect themselves. Why is that? Well it's because they're doing bad things, and they know that we may do something about it. Why isn't Peru stockpiling missiles, or Thailand, or Iceland? It's because Iran's government was seized by an authoritarian regime that hates America and decided we would be the enemy forever and has continued to attack, and take other violent or non-violent actions that destabilize the region and global trade. If they just stopped doing this stuff, there wouldn't be a reason to "attack".

> It is israel who just displaced millions of people.

I don't think so. But Iran is responsible for Syria and those millions of people too. Like Maduro is responsible for the 8 million + refugees from Venezuela.

Your point of view of the world does not match reality. Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.

> Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?

Well you believe in nuclear non-proliferation, right?

> Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.

this style of argument really falls flat in 2026 tho. at least for a global audience. it seems you don't appreciate how much america's image as a champion in good faith of freedom, democracy and prosperity has been shattered. not least because the old neoliberal guard has been busy undermining it (see carney's speech at WEF, where he started by pointing out that not only was the rules based order a lie, but that it is no longer acceptable to pretend otherwise). but now also because US aggression is perceived as directly responsible for the global energy crisis, which is affecting everyone else. america simply doesn't have a high horse to get on anymore

I speak for myself, not my entire country.

Part of the problem here is that folks have become so angry about Donald Trump that they've forgotten the broader picture. Taking out Maduro, taking action to stop Iran's regime, and more are unambiguously good things from the prospect of "freedom and democracy". There's a lot of conflict and anger and whatnot regarding trade and Trump's general idiocy, but if all of the world order, all of the good faith, all of that stuff is shattered so quickly? It wasn't very strong or valuable to begin with and so I don't mourn its loss.

If we no longer have a high horse, that gives us much more flexibility to act in our own self-interest since we no longer have to focus on taking losses to placate an image.

as i mentioned elsewhere. i don't disagree that america is in a strong position, relatively to everyone else. and has the means to achieve its interests. even without the superficial image of acting in good faith. but the old messaging ("america's tide is lifting all boats" etc) comes across uncalibrated

Sure, but you can step outside of an American context and still recognize that we shouldn’t support these authoritarian regimes.

agreement on fundamental principles at a global level was the american (liberal) context. stepping outside of it leads to discovering a diverse world that you didn't account for before. as an example, even among iranians there doesn't seem to be enough support for the attack on their regime

> Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis

I think the first step of thinking about war objectively is to consider how each side sees it. The US POV is no less circular, from Iran’s perspective - they could list any number of provocations from the US to justify arming themselves, none more obvious than the war itself.

The debate around who started the hostility is ultimately pointless, the question is what to do about. Ideally the answer isn’t “arm for obliteration because the other side started it”

Sure.

So let's say Iran stops building up massive amounts of missiles, funding these terrorist groups, stops pursuing a nuclear weapon, stops mass killing of its own civilians, and stops helping Russia prosecute its war against Ukraine (we can even leave this optional just to not introduce additional complexities).

What will the United States now have to do on its side as it pertains to Iran?

are you implying that the US share in the hostilities is only direct military intervention? because that's not correct. through their alliances, they are additionally responsible for more

No, I don't mean to imply that. I meant to understand what the OP thinks Iran will stop doing and what they think the US should stop doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com